Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation’s poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders.

No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That’s twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas.

A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republican House reconciliation bill as well as a more drastic Senate bill, would significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it’s unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals.

California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits.

“If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,” Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.

The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients.

All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints.

New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans’ drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds.

In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a “loophole” as “money laundering,” and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million “illegal immigrants” with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years.

“This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they’re needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,” Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement.

Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally.

California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the “federal taxpayer losses” from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal.

None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, while the House and Senate bills must be negotiated into one and passed by both chambers of Congress. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching.

A report by Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state’s hospital tax could “destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.” Losing revenue from the state’s MCO tax “would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,” it said.

CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule.

The Republicans’ House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The Senate version, released June 16, would gradually reduce the allowable amount of many provider taxes.

The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states “to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.”

Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars.

In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state’s insurers get back almost all the tax they pay.

That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars.

California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature’s ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue.

CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the effort to shrink provider taxes is embedded in both Republican reconciliation bills and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by $800 billion or more.

“All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,” said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy.

California’s MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state’s hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal.

Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill “all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,” said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center.

And it’s not only California that will feel the pain.

“All states are going to be hurt by this,” Park said.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Federal Proposals Threaten Provider Taxes, Key Source of Medicaid Funding for States appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article critically examines Republican proposals to limit provider taxes that fund Medicaid, emphasizing the potential negative impacts on vulnerable populations and state budgets, particularly in Democratic-led states like California. It highlights Democratic leaders’ concerns and quotes Democratic officials, framing the Republican efforts as harmful cuts. While it presents some Republican perspectives and justifications, the overall tone and focus favor a viewpoint aligned with expanding and protecting Medicaid funding, reflecting a center-left bias.

Millions of Americans who have waited decades for fast internet connections will keep waiting after the Trump administration threw a $42 billion high-speed internet program into disarray.

The Commerce Department, which runs the massive Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program, announced new rules in early June requiring states — some of which were ready to begin construction later this year — to solicit new bids from internet service providers.

The delay leaves millions of rural Americans stranded in places where health care is hard to access and telehealth is out of reach.

“This does monumental harm to rural America,” said Christopher Ali, a professor of telecommunications at Penn State.

The Biden-era program, known as BEAD, was hailed when created in 2021 as a national plan to bring fast internet to all, including millions in remote rural areas.

A yearlong KFF Health News investigation, with partner Gray Media’s InvestigateTV, found nearly 3 million people live in mostly rural counties that lack broadband as well as primary care and behavioral health care providers. In those same places, the analysis found, people live sicker and die earlier on average.

The program adopts a technology-neutral approach to “guarantee that American taxpayers obtain the greatest return on their broadband investment,” according to the June policy notice. The program previously prioritized the use of fiber-optic cable lines, but broadband experts like Ali said the new focus will make it easier for satellite-internet providers such as Elon Musk’s Starlink and Amazon’s Kuiper to win federal funds.

“We are going to connect rural America with technologies that cannot possibly meet the needs of the next generation of digital users,” Ali said. “They’re going to be missing out.”

Republicans have criticized BEAD for taking too long, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick vowed in March to get rid of its “woke mandates.” The revamped “Benefit of the Bargain BEAD Program,” which was released with a fact sheet titled “Ending Biden’s Broadband Burdens,” includes eliminating some labor and employment requirements and obligations to perform climate analyses on projects.

The requirement for states to do a new round of bidding with internet service providers makes it unclear whether states will be able to connect high-speed internet to all homes, said Drew Garner, director of policy engagement at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society.

Garner said the changes have caused “pure chaos” in state broadband offices. More than half the states have been knocked off their original timeline to deliver broadband to homes, he said.

The change also makes the program more competitive for satellite companies and wireless providers such as Verizon and T-Mobile, Garner said.

Garner analyzed in March what the possible increase in low-Earth-orbit satellites would mean for rural America. He found that fiber networks are generally more expensive to build but that satellites are more costly to maintain and “much more expensive” to consumers.

Commerce Secretary Lutnick said in a June release that the new direction of the program would be efficient and deliver high-speed internet “at the right price.” The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Commerce Department agency overseeing BEAD, declined to release a specific amount it hopes to save with the restructuring.

The NTIA also declined to respond on the record to questions about program revisions and delays.

More than 40 states had already begun selecting companies to provide high-speed internet and fill in gaps in underserved areas, according to an agency dashboard created to track state progress.

In late May, the website was altered and columns showing the states that had completed their work with federal regulators disappeared. Three states — Delaware, Louisiana, and Nevada — had reached the finish line and were waiting for the federal government to distribute funding.

The tracker, which KFF Health News saved in March, details the steps each state made in their years-long efforts to create location-based maps and bring high-speed internet to those missing service. West Virginia had completed selection of internet service providers and a leaked draft of its proposed plan shows the state was set to provide fiber connections to all homes and businesses.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) praised removal of some of the hurdles that delayed implementation and said she thought her state would not have to make very many changes to existing plans during a call with West Virginia reporters.

West Virginia’s broadband council has worked aggressively to expand in a state where 25% of counties lack high-speed internet and health providers, according to KFF Health News’ analysis.

In Lincoln County, West Virginia, Gary Vance owns 21 acres atop a steep ridge that has no internet connection. Vance, who sat in his yard enjoying the sun on a recent day, said he doesn’t want to wait any longer.

Vance said he has various medical conditions: high blood sugar, deteriorating bones, lung problems — “all kinds of crap.” He’s worried about his family’s inability to make a phone call or connect to the internet.

“You can’t call nobody to get out if something happens,” said Vance, who also lacks running water.

KFF Health News, using data from federal and academic sources, found more than 200 counties — with large swaths in the South, Appalachia, and the remote West — lack high-speed internet, behavioral health providers, and primary care doctors who serve low-income patients on Medicaid. On average, residents in those counties experienced higher rates of diabetes, obesity, chronically high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease.

The gaps in telephone and internet services didn’t cause the higher rates of illness, but Ali said it does not help either.

Ali, who traveled rural America for his book “Farm Fresh Broadband: The Politics of Rural Connectivity,” said telehealth, education, banking, and the use of artificial intelligence all require fast download and upload speeds that cannot always be guaranteed with satellite or wireless technology.

It’s “the politics of good enough,” Ali said. “And that is always how we’ve treated rural America.”

Fiber-optic cables, installed underground or on poles, consistently provide broadband speeds that meet the Federal Communications Commission’s requirements for broadband download speed of 100 megabits per second and 20 Mbps upload speed. By contrast, a national speed analysis, performed by Ookla, a private research and analytics company, found that only 17.4% of Starlink satellite internet users nationwide consistently get those minimum speeds. The report also noted Starlink’s speeds were rising nationwide in the first three months of 2025.

In March, West Virginia’s Republican governor, Patrick Morrisey, announced plans to collaborate with the Trump administration on the new requirements.

Republican state Del. Dan Linville, who has been working with Morrisey’s office, said his goal is to eventually get fiber everywhere but said other opportunities could be available to get internet faster.

In May, the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council signaled it preferred fiber-optic cables to satellite for its residents and signed a unanimous resolution that noted “fiber connections offer the benefits of faster internet speeds, enhanced data security, and the increased reliability that is necessary to promote economic development and support emerging technologies.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Trump Team’s Reworking Delays Billions in Broadband Build-Out appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article adopts a generally critical stance toward the Trump administration’s handling of the broadband program, emphasizing delays and negative consequences for rural communities. It highlights concerns from experts and advocates for fiber-optic technology, portraying the Biden-era BEAD program positively while critiquing the Trump-era restructuring as harmful to rural Americans. The tone and framing focus on social equity and government responsibility to underserved areas, which align with Center-Left perspectives prioritizing infrastructure investment and rural access. However, the article also presents viewpoints from Republican officials and notes bipartisan concerns, maintaining a level of balance overall.

When Alyne Diamond fell off a horse in August 2023 and broke her back, her employer-based health plan through UnitedHealthcare covered her emergency care in Aspen, Colorado. It also covered related pain management and physical therapy after she returned home to New York City. The bills totaled more than $100,000.

The real estate lawyer, now 67, was eligible for Medicare at the time but hadn’t enrolled. Since she was still working, she thought her employer health insurance plan would cover her.

That misunderstanding has had financial repercussions that she continues to deal with today.

More than a year after her riding accident, Diamond was back at the emergency room after she tripped on a step while entering a New York restaurant. Her face covered in blood, Diamond was examined by staff, who did multiple CT scans. The bill for that care: $12,000.

This time, though, the insurance coverage wasn’t routine. Nearly all her claims were denied.

Diamond was caught in a fairly common coverage snag: People who have group health insurance when they become eligible for Medicare sometimes find themselves on the hook for their medical bills because their group plan stops paying.

Diamond contacted several people at UnitedHealthcare before she found out why the insurer refused to pay her claims.

When Diamond turned 65 in 2022, Medicare — unbeknownst to her — became the “primary payer” for her claims, meaning the federal health program for older or disabled people was supposed to take the lead in covering her medical bills, before other insurers paid anything. (As secondary payer, Diamond’s employer policy picked up 20% of what Medicare would have paid.)

Had she signed up for the government insurance plan when she turned 65, Diamond could have avoided a financially perilous situation that left her unexpectedly responsible for the medical costs she incurred during that time.

She began to understand what had happened as she made inquiries about the denied claims.

Diamond said she was told that UnitedHealthcare audited her claims last year and determined it had been improperly paying for her care, perhaps because her pricey medical claims after her fall from the horse raised a red flag.

The insurer not only stopped paying current claims but also moved to claw back tens of thousands of dollars it had paid to providers in the two years since she turned 65. Some of those providers are now seeking payment from her.

“It’s horrifying,” she said. “For about two months I was devastated. I thought, ‘Where am I going to get the money to pay all these people? There goes my retirement.’”

The mistake has already cost her $25,000 and may cost her much more if providers continue to bill her for amounts that UnitedHealthcare has clawed back for care she received before signing up for Medicare in February.

A UnitedHealthcare spokesperson declined to provide an on-the-record statement, citing safety concerns.

Patient advocates say they frequently hear from people who, like Diamond, thought they didn’t need to sign up for Medicare upon turning 65 because they had group health coverage.

That assumption is generally correct if they or their spouse is working at a company with at least 20 employees. In that case, employer coverage is considered primary and they can delay signing up for Medicare as long as they or their spouse continues to be employed there.

But if someone has employer coverage through a company with fewer than 20 workers, Medicare generally becomes the primary payer when they turn 65. The real estate law firm at which Diamond is a partner has a handful of employees.

Similarly, if someone is older than 65 and has retiree health coverage or has left their job and opted to continue their employer coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, also known as COBRA, Medicare pays first. The issue can also arise for people who are younger than 65 if they are eligible for Medicare because of a disability. In those instances, Medicare pays first if they or their family member works at a company with fewer than 100 employees.

If people in these groups don’t sign up for Medicare when they become eligible, they can find themselves responsible for all their medical bills for years. (They may also owe a penalty for late enrollment in the Medicare program.)

“It’s very alarming and there’s no current fix to the situation,” said Fred Riccardi, president of the New York-based Medicare Rights Center, a national patient advocacy organization.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not respond to a request for comment.

Mark Scherzer, a lawyer in Germantown, New York, who helps people with insurance problems, and who advised Diamond, said he gets calls a couple of times a month from people who face this issue.

“What I see constantly now is that insurers go back and they claw back the money from the doctor and the doctor then claws the money back from the patient,” he said.

Costly claims may trigger an insurer to examine someone’s coverage.

Those big claims “seem to get on the insurer’s radar,” said Casey Schwarz, senior counsel for education and federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center.

UnitedHealthcare has recouped over $50,000 in medical bills from some of the providers who treated Diamond in New York after her riding accident. She’s paid them about $25,000 so far. Some have agreed to let her pay the amount Medicare would have paid.

But there may be more bills to come. Under New York law, health plans have two years after claims are paid to claw back payments from providers, and providers have three years to sue patients for medical debt. So, while there is still time for Diamond to be billed, the clock will eventually run out.

Diamond plans to sue the broker who manages her company’s health plan and other benefits for negligence.

“The Medicare secondary payment rules basically say that if you didn’t sign up because you didn’t know Medicare was supposed to be primary, that’s on you,” said Melanie Lambert, senior Medicare advocate at the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Connecticut.

Lambert said she has seen the issue “many, many times.” In some instances, if a beneficiary can demonstrate they were misled by an employer or a federal employee, they may qualify for relief or a special enrollment period, she said.

In a 2023 letter to the acting secretary of the Department of Labor, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners advocated applying a “commonsense rule to COBRA plans, individual health insurance, and other coverage sources: those entitled to Medicare Part B but not enrolled in it should not lose benefits they pay for from a non-Medicare coverage source.”

The Department of Labor didn’t respond to a request for comment.

In earlier times, people started collecting Social Security benefits then automatically got Medicare when they turned 65.

Now, enrolling in Medicare is more complicated for many people, said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president and the executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“As more people are delaying going on Social Security and delaying going on Medicare, there’s more opportunities for people to make mistakes, and those mistakes are costly,” Neuman said.

Coverage experts say there are no clear requirements for insurers, employers, or the federal government to notify people about how the payment rules governing coordination of benefits between health plans may change when they become eligible for Medicare.

The information appears in a chart in the government’s “Medicare & You” handbook, if someone knows to look for it. But it is not easy to find.

A straightforward fix could solve many of the problems people face in this area, Scherzer said. Since every health plan knows its enrollees’ ages, why not require them to notify people approaching 65 of possible benefit coordination issues with Medicare? “It’s so simple and such a no-brainer.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Have Job-Based Health Coverage at 65? You May Still Want To Sign Up for Medicare appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Centrist

This content provides a detailed and fact-based account of the complexities and pitfalls associated with Medicare enrollment and coordination of benefits with employer health plans. The tone is neutral, focusing on patient experiences, insurance practices, and systemic challenges without advocating for specific partisan policies. It presents information from multiple stakeholders, including patient advocates, insurers, and government entities, aiming to inform readers rather than promote a political agenda. Such balanced reporting aligns with a centrist perspective that highlights practical issues in healthcare administration without ideological bias.